|
|
I definitely think that, unless an individual is applying for a modelling / acting / performance role where appearance is important, photos are unnecessary and could unconsciously bias the employer's opinion of the candidate, either in a positive or negative way. Studies have found that attractive people are often viewed more positively than their more average counterparts. It should be the person's abilities and qualifications that matter, not what they look like.
|
04-Jan-201011:47 AM
|
|
|
I do believe that photo is not essential, as the qualities and experiences can be shown by resume only and can give a good impact on the employers to select the best one.
|
04-Jan-201010:30 AM
|
|
|
An On-line Resume probably should have a photo on it as it is part of the social networking experiance.
Your traditional resume should not have a photo on it. You're already pressed for space within the usual 3 page limit.
If you were a model(or similar) then your portfolio will include any relevant photos.
|
28-Dec-20093:49 PM
|
|
|
i would say it should not make a differnace to the resume at all as a ex chef we say dont show me your resume show me your skills and if they can cook they can cook alot of resumes of not accurute as they are expaned of what they have done so all is not true most of the time i would say give mos ppl a go who seems to have there head screwed on and not so much concentrate on the resumes or photos for that matter
cheers enzo
|
27-Dec-20099:07 PM
|
|
|
I believe the fact that most people don't include a photo is a good enough reason to include one. Anything that can make your resume stand out from the rest is an advantage.
|
23-Dec-200911:26 PM
|
|
|
LinkMe introduced photos on resumes a couple of years ago that generated significant debate. We felt that a photo is a great enhancement to an online resume. Whether it should be on a "hard copy" resume is less certain.
Ultimately if you choose to go with a photo then it must be a good one...what do you think?
|
23-Dec-20093:09 PM
|